Hahaha
What a muppet.
absoutly typical however that they "intend to sue". Hopefully they`ll drop the case. gettit...drop...ah.
Anon for terrible puns.
Staten Island manhole swallows texting teen
A Staten Island teen paid an unexpected visit to the borough's sewer system after falling down a manhole while texting, Staten Island Advance reports. Alexa Longueira, 15, was walking with a chum last week when the unattended aperture swallowed her. She recounted: "She literally just handed me the phone and I opened it [and] I …
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:04 GMT Alan B
Not surprised to hear this
Kids and young adults walk along texting without being aware of anything going on around them. Young mothers with babies in pushchairs are the worst. They push the baby straight out onto the road in front of them because they don't see the road, then there is a blast from car horns and a screech of brakes as drivers try and avoid hitting the pushchair. Then the mother screams at the drivers telling them they should look where they are going, when it is the mother at fault.
I'm surprised there aren't more deaths and serious injuries from this.
Texting whilst walking should be against the law.
-
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:04 GMT Chris 219
Only in America
Of COURSE she intends to sue!
1) Kid doesn't watch where she's going. Kid falls down manhole. Kid's footwear is so ineffectively attached to her feet that it is still in the sewer - either that or she had time to remove her securely fastened "sneaker" while she was down there.
2) Kid suffers scrapes and bruises.
3) Mum jumps on the litigious bandwagon even though no real harm was done, sues DEP for lack of foresight and lack of responsibility in protecting her hapless daughter who didn't have the foresight to watch where she was going! Both sides were at fault but hey... it must be someone else's fault, right?
4) PROFIT!! Oh, wait....
What "damages" is she hoping to claim, exactly? The cost of a plaster, a pair of "sneakers" and some antiseptic cream? Oh and some Ariel to get the clothes clean. Let's not forget the almost unimaginable trauma. Let's call it $200, tops.
Is it REALLY worth paying the lawyers more than that and wasting everyone's time when nothing of note really happened? Laugh it off as what happens when you don't pay attention, enjoy the rest of your life.
The mother clearly has no sense of perspective.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:33 GMT Lionel Baden
lol
what a shocker, that they are going to sue for bumps and bruises !!!
but tbh they prolly should of got the cones etc before opening it !
and anyway think of it this way Kim Longueira your daughter may not walk into busy traffic whilst textign she may of learnt an important lesson that only cost her a few scrapes !!!
but funney none the less
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thank you, stereotypical American
"Ms Longueira suffered nothing more than scrapes to her arms and back in the incident, although the Longueira family says it intends to sue."
But of course they do. If she'd walked into a lamp post (sorry, "light pole") whilst texting, she'd have had to shrug it off as a stupid thing to do, but fall down a hole without getting injured and her family's eyes light up with greed.
I hope the judge laughs them out of court.
-
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:39 GMT Bassey
Good idea
This is the sort of policy New Labour should be introducing over here. Leave all the manhole covers off to catch the inconsiderate little bastards that insist on trying to walk into me. It must happen four or more times every lunch time. It will catch the morons that use their umbrellas/big-tops-on-a-stick as battering rams when it's raining as well.
And can we have large brown bears at the bottom of the manholes?
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:39 GMT The Vociferous Time Waster
Must. Control. Rage.
"Ms Longueira suffered nothing more than scrapes to her arms and back in the incident, although the Longueira family says it intends to sue."
Not enough injury to cause actual loss (in terms of medical bills or lost earnings) and she was not looking where she was going. Any decision to sue is purely based on greed and a desire to exploit the screwed up legal system in the US. This sort of thing fills me with so much rage I just want to rip her face off and use it as a funny mask for my cat.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:39 GMT ThomH
Sounds like the texting would make a difference to me...
If "the fact her daughter was absorbed in texting "makes no difference", since the manhole shouldn't have been left to eat unsuspecting pedestrians", i.e. the manhole cover being off is basically a licence for anyone who falls into the sewer to cash in, then by her interpretation of the law a completely blind person who admitted that they just walk around aimlessly with no idea of what's around them could admit that in court and have the admission "make no difference"?
If the fact that her daughter was absorbed in texting does end up making no difference (which I guess will depend on a bunch of facts and circumstances which we don't know), it won't be because an unsuspecting pedestrian is incapable of making themselves liable for falling into a manhole.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:45 GMT John Curry
Morons...
So let's just check - had this Manhole cover been left unattended, and let's say someone with a physical or mental disability had fallen down the hole, would you have the same reaction?
It's possible for anyone to be distracted - the fact that she was texting doesn't really make any difference at all. The problem here is that someone left a dirty great hole in the road, unmarked, which resulted in injury, and which could have resulted in something much worse for someone more vulnerable.
She's well within her rights to sue, in should do.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:45 GMT Annihilator
@Chris 219
"What "damages" is she hoping to claim, exactly? The cost of a plaster, a pair of "sneakers" and some antiseptic cream?"
Nope, there's just one sneaker that needs replacing.
"Let's call it $200, tops."
Oh we can but hope, but sadly methinks it'll be a lot more than that. And some poor mug will lose his job for a split second mistake. And the 'I shouldn't need to look where I'm going' waste of oxygen will learn nothing.
What the Yanks (and potentially the UK - we're teetering on the edge) is a group of people that sue every single stupid claim for waste of public/court money/time. Unfortunately it'd probably end up hoisted by its own petard.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:45 GMT copsewood
she has every right to sue
Even 30 years ago when I was working on telecom underground plant we had to put cones out and road signs around our manholes before lifting the covers. We also had to use pedestrian barriers if on a pavement.
OK, so some sighted people have their heads in the clouds. But imagine what it's like for someone with visual impairments to encounter a hole in the ground where there wasn't one before.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 10:49 GMT Trokair 1
For the record.....
This is not your "typcial American". As much as commentards enjoy being snide towards anything having to do with our country, please realize that you only ever hear of the stupid people in the papers over here. It is journalism for entertainment not information. That all Americans sue when there is the slightest mishap is as accurate as "All Brits are missing most of their teeth, have huge floppy ears, and speak a near unintelligable language that they refer to as Proper English".
Not much of a surprise I suppose seeing how you hate your own country as much as you hate ours (from a generalized standpoint via these same boards).
Yes the mother is an idiot, as is the teen. I hope if they do sue that the court throws out the case and orders them pay for the money wasted even considering this for trial.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 11:29 GMT Alex 32
and again
Sue the pants off the negligent bar-stewards!
Yup, more of the same.. We're going that way too now.. (uk).. shame really.. No more dusting off the clothes, patting ourselves down, having a quick laugh before hobbling off with head held high. That's the British Way, quite right
Mines the one with Modern Etiquette in it the pocket
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 11:31 GMT William Clark
If I was the Judge
And this came to court, I would to the DEP - 'have your learnt our lesson?' and waited until the explained without prompting how sorry they were and how they made a stupid mistake and will make sure it does not happen again. I would ensure they pay for a sneaker and nominal sundires - plasters and then I would ask the claimant if she had learnt her lesson to pay attention to what I around her and then I would dismiss the case and tell the lawyers tough, go do some proper work.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 11:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
@copsewood
"But imagine what it's like for someone with visual impairments to encounter a hole in the ground where there wasn't one before."
I'd imagine the white stick or the guide dog would have alerted them to the danger. Much like they would have been unable to see the cones, or just trip over them and fall head first down the hole.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 11:31 GMT Georgees
They should sue!
If I fell down a bloody manhole I would never step on another one as long as I live.
Also it could have been a lot worse and understandably traumatic.
Leaving a manhole open is fucking stupid and someone needs to be disciplined.
If this was an old granny or a toddler you'd all be up in arms about how wrong it was of the workmen.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
You put up cones FIRST, then lift the covers...
This has nothing to do with her texting, it has more to do with common sense. You secure your work area first from intrusion before you start work, i.e. you put cones and barriers in place BEFORE you lift the manhole cover.
That's common sense. Looks like some commentards on here seem to forget that.
Suing is stupid, but the threat alone is worth the company changing its practices to a more common-sensical approach.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:02 GMT Mike Smith
@Bassey
"Leave all the manhole covers off to catch the inconsiderate little bastards that insist on trying to walk into me. It must happen four or more times every lunch time."
Don't happen to live in Leeds, do you?
OTOH, maybe not. Four near misses per lunchtime is way too low. If the council left manhole covers open round here, the sewers would fill up in minutes. Nowhere else have I ever seen such a concentration of people who don't look where they're going. Comparing Leeds with London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Birmingham, Southampton, Bristol, Nottingham and Bournemouth, this place stands proud as the City of the Blind.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:02 GMT Schultz
@John Curry
"So let's just check - had this Manhole cover been left unattended, and let's say someone with a physical or mental disability had fallen down the hole, would you have the same reaction?"
Don't we all have our disabilities? But most disabled do make an effort to pay attention to world and dog, so they are a whole bit less annoying than the careless teen.
If the able play disabled we should be allowed to laugh!
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:06 GMT The Fuzzy Wotnot
...and stations!
What is is about mobiles and morons? They walk along in a complete daze, the only thing on their mind is the little gadget in their hands. The sole reason for their existence, the gadget must be obeyed, all hail the gadget, their lives would collapse in under two seconds without that lifeline.
I hate getting off the tube and crossing over to the mainline in London these days, as the minute the phone connects back to the network, the world just stops for the feckless morons. They stop being able to think logically ( if they ever did anyway! ), they stop walking and just tune into "the gadget". You feel like pushing them under a train just to teach them that there are other people about, the world does not revolve around them, the rest of us can still live without " a gadget". I think I have made a total of 5 mins of calls in the last 2 weeks on my mobile, I can live without mine!
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:06 GMT Riscyrich
I would hope...
.... that the family just takes a small sum of money to replace sneakers/cloths, pay medical bills (which no doubt will be huge) and a little compo. I would also hope that they insist the guy(s) responsible get a good shoe-ing and keep their jobs. Ok, ok, it was a school boy H&S mistake which could have been a lot worse but no-one was badly hurt and I very much doubt they would ever make the same mistake again.
Then again, this is me also hoping that people can be ‘reasonable’ these days.
Rich
(a big eared, toothless Englishman)
Paris - because I bet she'd employ the sacked DEP guys to flush out her man hole
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:06 GMT alan 39
Re William Clark
You my son are speaking my kind of language. That in my opinion is exactly what should happen. With maybe a verbal warning and retraining for the staff in question. I cant believe how many people here are calling for the sack, it harsh if its a first offence, and an inocent mistake.
But I really suspect that she will be getting 10's of K's of $.
Mores the pity.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:26 GMT Kris Sweeney
Sanity Check...
Sorry but lets get this straight... she was so engrossed in texting that she missed a bloody great hole in the pavement/road - how would placing another obsticle there for her to trip over help?
If she had gone down the hole head first she may not have been able to walk away... Same goes for a visually impaired person.
If i happened to fall down a sewer (due to my own lack of attention) I would rather do it feet first!
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 12:48 GMT multipharious
Just a second?
There is a procedure around lifting a manhole cover, and it does not involve doing it and leaving it open and unattended...end of story. OSHA regulations in the US state "constantly attended if not guarded by removable standard railings." Cones don't do it folks. You watch guys in any city, in most countries and they have the railings up BEFORE they lift the cover. I am not sure what I think about a lawsuit in this case since the damage was luckily minor, but the people involved are likely already fired with cause. Next time you are distracted walking down the street, think about how you take the surface upon which you are walking for granted when you look in a shop window or turn to talk. I generally watch where I walk (especially in cities with no dog sh!t laws)...but I do not ALWAYS watch where I walk.
Google - Bing -Yahoo! or whatever if you want for "osha manhole covers" and try to find a leg to stand on if you disagree with anything written there. Not sure what any reader's local occupational health organization is, but it probably reads about the same.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 13:53 GMT Alan W. Rateliff, II
@AJ, @John Curry
Anonymous John: very cool.
John Curry: I actually believe a mentally or physically disabled person would have an advantage over this young woman.
As for suing, considering how very few municipalities and states are actually staying afloat right now, they will be lucky to receive anything from a judgment. With any luck the case will get a jury or a judge which correctly divides the blame between the two parties: the crew for not properly marking the area around the manhole cover, and the silly twit for tweating and not paying attention to where she placed her feet.
*sigh* I wonder if anyone has ever sued to get sidewalk lamp posts painted fluorescent orange because s/he walked into one and felt too stupid to take responsibility.
RESPONSIBILITY NO! LIABILITY YES!
Paris, improperly marked manhole.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 14:26 GMT Eddy Ito
Building character.
One open manhole at a time. I hope the lass has learned something from this and that it isn't which speed dial button is for the lawyer.
Clearly the DEP boys should have rushed over, grabbed the girl, called the cops and pressed trespassing charges. Perhaps if they are smart they will as a counter to the "I for one, am shocked" lawsuit the mum is planning. Yes, yes, the DEP workers made a mistake; but careless, unthinking and untrained falls far short of negligent which is undoubtedly what the mum is going to cry. At some point folks need to be responsible for themselves so I don't see what is wrong with expecting a modicum of attention from people walking down the street. Then again, being mostly a country bumpkin I'm accustomed to watch where I'm going since you never know where a gopher hole, dead tree or steaming pile of shit is going to turn up.
Heck, my folks would have sent me straight back to the scene, dirty clothes and all, to apologize to the men for getting in their way and causing a disruption and ask to go back in to find my other shoe. Only then would I be told to wash my clothes, by hand because "you aren't putting those filthy things in my washer", and be unceremoniously hosed off, buck naked, in the front yard before I was even allowed in the house... Ah... good times...
Big Brother because apparently we can't watch out for ourselves.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 14:47 GMT Adam Foxton
Good for her suing!
By the sounds of it the DEP should have had warning cones up but didn't. For not doing this they should be punished... it makes some sense to let the person it inconvenienced get some money- although given that there's been no real loss they should pay for, for example, a replacement set of clothes and shoes and a full range of medical tests to make sure she hasn't caught anything.
If there was ANYTHING to indicate that the manhole was open- a sign, a single cone, etc- then she shouldn't get anything. Maybe new shoes if it wasn't very clear...
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 15:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
C'mon, here's how to sue in style!
A burglary victim was told by a court to pay pounds 4,000 damages - to the burglar.
Allotment holder Ted Newbery, 82, shot intruder Mark Revill in his shed near Ilkeston, Derbyshire. Revill was later jailed for the burglary but sued Newbery for damages, claiming that the injuries had been traumatic and had "ruined his life".
A judge awarded pounds 4,033 damages, an amount which would have been larger if the burglar had not been partly to blame. Mr Justice Rougier commented: "To poke a shotgun through a hole and fire it with the knowledge thatt here are people outside constitutes negligence to the point of recklessness."
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 15:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Morons
>"So let's just check - had this Manhole cover been left unattended, and let's say someone with a physical or mental disability had fallen down the hole, would you have the same reaction?"
Nah, I would have laughed even harder!
>" It's possible for anyone to be distracted - the fact that she was texting doesn't really make any difference at all. "
It's possible for anyone to be distracted, and that's how accidents happen, and why it's the fault of the person who was distracted. There is a technique that prudent people apply to avoid being distracted, it's called "paying some fucking attention to what you're doing". Not doing so is stupid, and deliberately and wilfully distracting yourself by stopping looking at where you're going in order to look at a mobile, or watch tv, or read a book, or just closing your eyes and walking up the street is *negligence*. If you're going to stop paying attention to where you're going because you want to read a txt, just STOP BLOODY WALKING. Duh!
>" The problem here is that someone left a dirty great hole in the road, unmarked, which resulted in injury, and which could have resulted in something much worse for someone more vulnerable. "
She would have been twice as fucked if she decided to cross a road without looking; are you going to insist that every car on the face of the planet must be immobilised? What if she'd bumped into a lamppost? Saw them all down? What if she tripped over a kerb or a rock? Level the entire planet into one smooth surface? What about if she walked smack face first into a wall? Must we all live outdoors in paper huts?
No. It's not safe to walk around without looking where you're going, it never will be and never can be and any attempt to make it so is futile chasing after an impossible pipe-dream at the behest of a pathetic individual who wants to be absolved of responsibility for the entirely-predictable consequences of their own stupidity.
>" She's well within her rights to sue, in should do. "
The only compensation she deserves is a white stick. That's all blind people get to help them avoid this kind of problem and it works fine for them, why should someone able-bodied deserve special treatment over and above the actually disadvantaged?
There should be spikes and broken glass and bear-traps at the bottom of manholes. That would really have taught her a lesson!
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 16:00 GMT ElReg!comments!Pierre
Lamerica
"what if it has been a visually-impaired person, a granny or a mentally impaired person*"
Well, they wouldn't have had any problem avoiding the hole. Even a blind person can avoid a hole in the street (well, *especially* a blind person I would say). But not the average Staten Island teen apparently.
You know, if there had been a todler or a blind mentally impaired granny instead of the manhole, she could very well have injured someone seriously. What would the "caring mom" say in this case? Sue the poor granny (with her broken hipbone) for the scratches on her poor daughter's knee?
You know what, I think Mohammed Atta's family should sue the city of New York. After all, they left those 2 big towers unattended in the middle of the path, with no cones, no fences and no warnings whatsoever.
Hey, you know what, the stupid teen's family should also patent "running randomly into obstacles then making money out of moronic lawsuits". They could get hefty royalties from their fellow morons all over the country!
Oh and @ Geogees: "If I fell down a bloody manhole I would never step on another one as long as I live." Erm, that *is* a proof of intelligence. Yes, yes, I assure you. Don't beleive people who say you're stupid, and keep'em coming! "if I ever fell from a bike, I wouldn't get anywhere near anything bearing wheels for my whole life" maybe? "If I ever got a cold, I wouldn't go out of my bedroom anymore til I died"? "If I ever ate something I didn't like, I wouldn't eat anything anymore, ever"? Or do you really mean "If I ever fell down a hole out of not looking where I'm going, I might pay more attention to where I put my clumsy feet"?
*must love the puke-inducing overdose of politically-correct stupidly neutered and borderly "mentally impaired" vocabulary here
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 16:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Alan B
Mothers have been using strollers to clear traffic since there has been traffic. Doing so while texting is just another element to the ignorance of using a pushchair as a traffic stop. Despite the temptation to teach the mother a severe lesson in green-cross-code it always seemed just a tad wrong to take out any frustration on the idiot mother's baby so I've always done my best to stop. It's been close on occasion when a stealth mother will do a fast 90 degree into traffic, but so far no baby deaths on my conscience. Curiously I found they pull the exact same maneuver in the US.
The thing I've always wondered is why they think that a stroller is strong enough to protect themselves from on-coming traffic as well as whether they are all angry ex-lollypop ladies (crossing guards) on a mission to prove their firing was unjust.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 21:03 GMT KaD
I almost hit a texting-tard
He was listing to his iPod while texting and walking down the street. Walked directly in front of my car when I was in the middle of my green light doing 50kmph. Only by liberal use of my brakes, swerving and application of my horn did the retard manage to survive without a scratch. Should have seen his eyes when he looked up and the only thing between me and him was my drivers side window. Maybe texting is just the next big way to sort the terminally stupid from the genepool.
-
Tuesday 14th July 2009 21:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Really? They're suing?
Lawsuit happy morons that think every accident that happens signals their "god-given right" to be repaid for their stupidity, not realizing that they _already were_... did I say that out loud?
Personally I'd be more inclined to shout at the "friend" who passed her the phone at the crucial moment just before she stepped off the edge, who was ALSO apparently not paying any attention .
When are people going to realize that if we keep paying people for being stupid, this improves their chances of breeding more of themselves?
-
Wednesday 15th July 2009 00:04 GMT kain preacher
Jay Walking
I am no expert on city sewage design but normally the manholes are placed in the road (street to our US friends) and as such was she not breaking the law at the time by jay walking. She should nicked and counter-sued, if on the way down, she damaged any municipal equipment.
Nope there are man holes in side walks here, some are in the cross walk.
-
Wednesday 15th July 2009 08:29 GMT not'known@this.address
Do Teenagers Dream of Electric Sheep?
The workers should have put the barriers in place before lifting the cover, even if they were only checking they had the right location, or whatever. Fdailing that, one of them should have stayed at the hole to make sure some wandering idiot didn't miss the hole (figuratively!) and fall down.
On the gripping appendage, it's about time something made idiots like this pay more attention to what is going on around them - it's not always somebody else's fault, and it is high time someone pointed out to these idiot kids and their parents that the Real World is harsh and unforgiving, and if you do something dumb, something bad will likely happen.
There may not be any real animals left around my neck o' the woods for kids to have ever seen a real, live sheep 'face-to-face' but the oblivious little buggers walk around like they are dreaming of something...
-
Wednesday 15th July 2009 08:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
I for one...
...welcome our new manhole-opening turd-friendly overlords. And if they'd care to nobble the titanic bell-end I nearly ran into in Dean Street recently - the one listening to his iPod, reading a book and walking down the middle of the road with his back to the oncoming traffic - that'd be one fewer useless mouth to feed after The Revolution.
-
Wednesday 15th July 2009 11:22 GMT N Chapman
Hmm
As some have raised above, if this kid was disabled, or blind, than it would be an entirely different kettle of fish. Also, if she had actually injured herself seriously, then damages might have been in order.
She isn't disabled, and hasn't been injured.
So why are the family trying to sue? I just don't get that!
Where I live, a lad was walking down the street, and stepped on a temporary manhole cover, which moved under the pressure. This meant that one leg went down the hole, and one stayed on the surface. Very very funny to see, but caused serious damage to his still standing knee. He could easily have taken it to court, but because the workmen were so helpful, calling the ambulance and making sure he was OK, he decided against it. Why can't that happen in these circumstances?
-
Wednesday 15th July 2009 13:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ N Chapman & others
Punitive damages make a lot of sense really. You may find it obscene that someone can profit from their own clumsyness, but I just see it as their good fortune. The alternative of companies writing of their own negligence because it's an insignificant amount is far more obscene. This girl could easily have racked up thousands of dollars' worth of medical expenses that the DEP could swallow up no problem. It wouldn't be significant enough for them to start thinking harder about safety, so what's the point? You need to make organisations responsible for their actions to make them act responsibly.
Most people don't expect big holes in the street, so it's not hard to realise that anyone could have fallen into that hole and could easily have been killed - possibly with no-one even realising. It's also not hard to realise that the DEP aren't going to take any notice unless they get slapped with a fine. So some clumsy girl makes some money ... so what? Wouldn't be the first time...
As for the guy who slipped through a temporary manhole cover - seems to me he's well within his rights to sue. It's got nothing to do with retribution, it's simply about being protected if you're hurt through someone else's actions. The law may be different over here, but at least he wouldn't be left out of pocket.
No, this girl doesn't need 100 billion dollars to get a dry-clean and buy a new phone, but her gain is their loss. That's the point.
-
Friday 17th July 2009 08:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Idiot
EPIC http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/fail_32.png
As pedestrians, we have our responsibilities also - one of them being look where we're going. Serve her right to allow herself to be distracted. She should have landed in the sh*t! That would teach her a real lesson.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
